Tracking state reactions to the ICC Arrest Warrants against Netanyahu, Gallant, & Deif 🧵
Methodology notes:
Except for key actors (Israel, Palestine, US) I will only track MFA, HoS and HoG statements.
Simple retweets of the ICC press release are not counted
Netherlands 🇳🇱
"The Netherlands will execute Netanyahu's arrest warrant" rtl.nl/nieuws/video/v…
France 🇫🇷
"support the court prosecutor’s action who acts in all independence … and the fight against impunity is our priority"
"continued support to the ICC’s action, our reaction will align with those principles" aa.com.tr/en/europe/fran…
USA 🇺🇸
"The United States fundamentally rejects the Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials. We remain deeply concerned by the Prosecutor’s rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision," reuters.com/world/us-rejec…
Guys, think from the perspective of an Egyptian diplomat, not a defender of ethnic cleansing for one second, and tell me, from that perspective, who was “massacred” by the Mongols and the Crusaders?
The Zionist interpretation of Azzam’s quote is hugely contested, mostly because, as Israeli historian Benny Morris states, it is an outlier - no other quotes like this exist from Arab leadership. In fact, Morris himself doubts that it is even authentic
This is because of several reasons. Firstly, bc Zionists sources have purposely re-dated it to 15 May 1948 ie on the eve of invasion - likely to fabricate a gotcha scenario. Even Morris gets the date wrong as he contests the quote’s reliability
Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to a Jewish state *to the exclusion of anyone else*, namely, Palestinians, in Palestine. There is no Multicultural or Plurinational Zionism. Its a belief rooted in ethnic cleansing which is exactly what was done to Palestinians in 1948
Now yes as with all identitarian ideologies, there are many levels of buy-in among self-described Zionists. For the vast majority of Zionists, Zionism does indeed only mean “I think there should be a Jewish state” with absolutely no concern about practicality or history
This is common. The vast majority of Catholics do not believe they can’t divorce, even when the Church is very clear that they can’t. Many don’t go to mass every Sunday, etc. But it would be absurd to say this defines Catholicism and not the Catechism of the Church
“Ungrateful little asshole”? Boy I really need to add “rattled Matt Walsh” to my bio. And no Matt I don’t mean the Aztec bc 1492+10=1502 and Cortez arrived in Mexico in 1519. Your cliche answers are not good enough here. But there’s a lot more you get wrong so let me start a 🧵
First, you have moved the goalposts from “Atlantic Exploration” to “travelling around the Earth”. Don’t get me wrong, you are wrong about the former too, as the Malians launched an Atlantic expedition in the 1300s, as told by Mansa Musa, but you’re very wrong about the latter
There’s evidence of Polynesian and Chinese voyages in the Pacific and Indian oceans respectively and hell even tales of Inca exploration of Polynesia. And of course the creation of the Maritime was filled with nameless explorers through the centuries.
“Genes determine skin colour”
Yes they also determine height, moles, and hair colour. But we dont build social hierarchies around that. That doesn’t mean races are genetic. It means you ring fenced some genes and attributed moral/social value to them. We call this “racism”
Like imagine saying stuff like “height is determined by genes, this is why tall people face a higher risk of thyroid problems! [apparently true] You can’t deny there is a physical difference between Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenneger!!”
Or like “there are studies that have found that short people tend to commit more crimes than tall people! [apparently this is true too!] Obviously this is a result of the different genes in tall and short people!”
The nominal debate about sexual organs is a rather dumb one. You either think gender is assigned or innate and frankly that is of little consequence. The consequential discussion is why you think that: it’s either fragile masculinity or concern over safety in private spaces /1
IMO the latter is the only valid reason. I don’t care if a dude is scared that he will “accidentally” be attracted to a trans woman and hit on her. Deal with your own insecurities without trampling on other people’s rights. But safety in private spaces or fairness in sports? Sure
Here’s the thing though: safety and fairness are not “trans issues”. A fully cis male bathroom can be unsafe for a little boy (hi Catholic Church). Privacy concerns can be addressed with lockable personal booths. Transness is not the reason why private spaces can be unsafe